Systematic review with meta-analysis of mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proadm) as a prognostic marker in Covid-19-hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is useful for risk stratification in patients with sepsis and respiratory infections. The study's purpose was to assess the available data and determine the association between MR-proADM levels and mortality in COVID-19 participants. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of medical electronic databases was performed including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and grey literature for relevant data published from 1 January 2020, to 20 November 2022. Mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: Fourteen studies reported MR-proADM levels in survivors vs. non-survivors of COVID-19 patients. Pooled analysis showed that MR-proADM level in the survivor group was 0.841 ± 0.295 nmol/L for patients who survive COVID-19, compared to 1.692 ± 0.761 nmol/L for non-survivors (MD = -0.78; 95%CI: -0.92 to -0.64; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The main finding of this study is that mortality of COVID-19 is linked to MR-proADM levels, according to this meta-analysis. The use of MR-proADM might be extremely beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary. Nevertheless, in order to confirm the obtained data, it is necessary to conduct large prospective studies that will address the potential diagnostic role of MR-proADM as a marker of COVID-19 severity.KEY MESSAGESSeverity of COVID-19 seems to be linked to MR-proADM levels and can be used as a potential marker for predicting a patient's clinical course.The use of MR-proADM might be beneficial in triaging, assessing probable therapy escalation, predicting potential complications during therapy or significant clinical deterioration of patients, and avoiding admission which may not be necessary.For patients with COVID-19, MR-proADM may be an excellent prognostic indicator because it is a marker of endothelial function that may predict the precise impact on the equilibrium between vascular relaxation and contraction and lowers platelet aggregation inhibitors, coagulation inhibitors, and fibrinolysis activators in favor of clotting factors.

The Prognostic Role of Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This study aimed to investigate the potential prognostic role of the platelet-to-lymphocyte (PLR) ratio in patients presenting with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS). A systematic search of PubMed Central, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from conception through 20 August 2023 was conducted. We used odds ratios (OR) as the effect measure with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) with a 95% CI for continuous data. If I2 was less than 50% or the p value of the Q tests was less than 0.05, a random synthesis analysis was conducted. Otherwise, a fixed pooled meta-analysis was performed. Nineteen studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. PLR was higher in MACE-positive (164.0 ± 68.6) than MACE-negative patients (115.3 ± 36.9; MD = 40.14; 95% CI: 22.76 to 57.52; p < 0.001). Pooled analysis showed that PLR was higher in AMI patients who died (183.3 ± 30.3), compared to survivors (126.2 ± 16.8; MD = 39.07; 95% CI: 13.30 to 64.84; p = 0.003). It was also higher in the ACS vs. control group (168.2 ± 81.1 vs. 131.9 ± 37.7; MD = 39.01; 95% CI: 2.81 to 75.21; p = 0.03), STEMI vs. NSTEMI cohort (165.5 ± 92.7 vs. 159.5 ± 87.8; MD = 5.98; 95% CI: -15.09 to 27.04; p = 0.58), and MI vs. UAP populations (162.4 ± 90.0 vs. 128.2 ± 64.9; MD = 18.28; 95% CI: -8.16 to 44.71; p = 0.18). Overall, our findings confirmed the potential prognostic role of the plate-let-to-lymphocyte (PLR) ratio in patients presenting with suspected acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Its use as a risk stratification tool should be examined prospectively to define its capability for evaluation in cardiovascular patients.

Uncovering the effects of COVID-19 on in-hospital cardiac arrest - a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a global pandemic and had a negative impact on the entire health care system. To understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies was designed to compare the pre- and intra-pandemic periods of adult patients who suffered cardiac arrest, and additionally by performing a sub-analysis related to COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients in the same group of patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on IHCA outcomes a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Pubmed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database were searched for articles published from 1 January 2020 - 8 April 2023. RESULTS: Return of spontaneous circulation events among IHCA patients in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 pandemic periods varied and amounted to 64.0% vs. 60.0%, respectively (OR=1.23; 95%CI: 1.19 to 1.26; p<0.001). Re-arrest occurrence was 4.5% vs. 4.9%, respectively (OR=1.24; 95%CI: 1.00 to 1.53; p=0.05). Survival to hospital discharge (SHD) was 25.1% compared to 20.9% for COVID-19 period (OR = 1.17; 95%CI: 0.96 to 1.41; p=0.12). During the COVID-19 period, SHD in COVID-19 positive patients was 14.0% compared to 25.9% for patients without COVID-19 (OR=0.72; 95%CI: 0.28 to 1.86; p=0.50). 30-day survival rate among COVID-19 positive vs. negative patients was 62.6% vs. 58.3%, respectively (OR =0.99; 95%CI: 0.23 to 4.24; p=0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection had reduced rates of ROSC and SDH, as well as poorer neurologic outcomes and increased in hospital re-arrests during the COVID-19 period. However, the 30-day survival rate was similar in SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients.

The effect of zinc supplementation on the course of COVID-19 - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Zinc is a trace element that plays a role in stimulating innate and acquired immunity. The aim of the study was to determine the antiviral effect of the administration of zinc in COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in P Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases from 1 January 2020 - 22 August 2022. In addition, reference lists of the included articles and their related citations in PubMed were also reviewed for additional pertinent studies. RESULTS: A total of 9 eligible studies were identified. In-hospital mortality in zinc supplementation patients, and patients treated without zinc, varied and amounted to 21.6% vs. 23.04% difference (OR=0.71; 95%CI: 0.62-0.81; p<0.001). 28-day to 30-day mortality in patients treated with zinc was 7.7%, compared to 11.9% for patients treated without zinc (OR=0.61; 95%CI: 0.35-1.06; p=0.08). In-hospital adverse events among patients treated with and without COVID-19 did not show any statistically significant differences in relation to acute kidney injury occurrence (12.8% vs. 12.4%, respectively; OR=0.63; 95%CI: 0.19-2.12; p=0.45, as well as need for mechanical ventilation (13.2% vs. 14.1%; OR=0.83; 95%CI: 0.52-1.32; p=0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Zinc supplementation is associated with lower COVID-19 in-hospital mortality. Additionally, it is risk-free in COVID-19 patients since there have been no negative side effects, such as acute renal damage or the requirement for mechanical ventilation compared to patients without COVID-19. Due to scientific evidence and the role it represents in the human body, zinc supplementation should be taken into consideration for COVID-19 patients as an adjunct therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Video-Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Double-Lumen Endotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The available meta-analyses have inconclusively indicated the advantages of video-laryngoscopy (VL) in different clinical situations; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine efficacy outcomes such as successful first attempt or time to perform endotracheal intubation as well as adverse events of VL vs. direct laryngoscopes (DL) for double-lumen intubation. First intubation attempt success rate was 87.9% for VL and 84.5% for DL (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.86; I2 = 61%; p = 0.08). Overall success rate was 99.8% for VL and 98.8% for DL, respectively (OR = 3.89; 95%CI: 0.95 to 15.93; I2 = 0; p = 0.06). Intubation time for VL was 43.4 ± 30.4 s compared to 54.0 ± 56.3 s for DL (MD = -11.87; 95%CI: -17.06 to -6.68; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Glottic view based on Cormack-Lehane grades 1 or 2 equaled 93.1% and 88.1% in the VL and DL groups, respectively (OR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.18 to 9.41; I2 = 63%; p = 0.02). External laryngeal manipulation was needed in 18.4% cases of VL compared with 42.8% for DL (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.40; I2 = 69%; p < 0.001). For double-lumen intubation, VL offers shorter intubation time, better glottic view based on Cormack-Lehane grade, and a lower need for ELM, but comparable first intubation attempt success rate and overall intubation success rate compared with DL.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Out-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survival Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with poor prognosis. Because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted mortality and morbidity, both on an individual level and the health care system as a whole, our purpose was to determine rates of OHCA survival since the onset of the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of COVID-19 on OHCA survival outcomes according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the literature using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases from inception to September 2021 and identified 1775 potentially relevant studies, of which thirty-one articles totaling 88,188 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 periods was 12.3% vs. 8.9%, respectively (OR = 1.40; 95%CI: 1.06-1.87; p < 0.001). Survival to hospital discharge in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods was 11.5% vs. 8.2% (OR = 1.57; 95%CI: 1.37-1.79; p < 0.001). A similar dependency was observed in the case of survival to hospital discharge with the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2 (6.7% vs. 4.0%; OR = 1.71; 95%CI: 1.35-2.15; p < 0.001), as well as in the 30-day survival rate (9.2% vs. 6.4%; OR = 1.63; 95%CI: 1.13-2.36; p = 0.009). In conclusion, prognosis of OHCA is usually poor and even worse during COVID-19.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19-26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17-21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5-38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21-29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.